LDS Handshake Test (D&C 129)

[Rescued One]

If I ever see a spirit I'LL give it a try and let you know.

Can Mormons see spirits?

 

[Rescued One]

I'm sorry I was on my phone in the dark trying to answer you. Fatboy's answer is right, sacred things are not shared. I can tell you I've never experience seeing a spirit up close and personal so I've never had a chance to give it a try.


I have felt an evil spirit in a room and I used the name of Jesus and told it to leave, which it did.

I have had other spiritual experiences which I will not discuss in this open form but they were very real and experienced by the all present.

I think most Mormons can tell very personal experiences but they hold them sacred in fact if they start to broadcast them it's time to start doubting them.

Why did Joseph Smith share his sacred grove experience?

 

[withwonderingawe]

Why did Joseph Smith share his sacred grove experience?

Took him awhile and then I don't think he ever gave a full account.

 

[withwonderingawe]

Can Mormons see spirits?

Yes, when there is a reason to.

 

[Rescued One]

Yes, when there is a reason to.

What would be a reason

 

[withwonderingawe]

There are stories off seeing different members of families who have past on and needing temple work done. There is the story of bombing up in Wyoming where children saw their grandmothers protecting them. In that case it wasn't just Mormons. I have a friend whose husband was in a bad farm accident who will not talk about it except to family, I know he saw something he's a changed man. I have another friend who was in a bad accident hanging upside down in a ravine with her little boy for hours. She'll tell you she was not alone but nothing more. Yes Mormons see spirits/angels.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

Matthew 7:6 -
6 ¶Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

How is this not saying "discretion in who you tell things to"?

So you consider Christians to be dogs and swine and therefore unworthy for you to share your "pearls" with?

Nothing new there - I've already stated how "worthiness" is part of the occultic nature of mormonism and you use that verse, misinterpreted, to try to back up your occultism.

But it's good that you reveal that you think we are "dogs" and "swine".

 

[fatboys]

Can Mormons see spirits?

Can Mormons see spirits?

Can Mormons see spirits?

You haven't seen one?

 

[dzheremi]

Importance: Christ is above the angels and His importance trumps them, and waaay trumps talking about handshakes. I feel like this is obvious.

Christ is above everything, so this is not so much obvious as it is irrelevant and unenlightening.

Sacredness: still, and personal angelic visit is a miracle- a sacred pearl not to be paraded around. Again, I feel like this is obvious.

As Phoebe Ann rightly pointed out a few posts after the one I'm now replying to, Joseph Smith shared his vision(s). If he hadn't, you wouldn't have the Mormon religion.

And anyway, this still doesn't make sense as a response, because all the OP asks is if this handshake test is used, and if you could provide some examples of it being used. There's no request that anyone share their personal stories, so if it is used you could conceivably come up with an example to show it without involving yourself personally.

If someone were to ask me for an example of saints in my own church who were visited by angels, I could point to several well-known events in the lives of Abba Anthony, St. Philopateer Mercurius/Abu Seifein, or Abba Paul (none of whom did this handshake thing; good thing, too, since St. Philopateer Mercurius was visited by a sword-weilding Archangel Gabriel! ). These were all holy events, too, but that does not somehow stop me from talking about them. Heck, we've got icons in our churches and monasteries that show these visitations, we write hymns about them, produce films about them, and so forth. They're simply a part of the lives of these saints.

It seems like Mormons on this board (but not elsewhere, as I've already linked to a Mormon messageboard where there is a discussion on angelic visitation prompted by the supposed vision of one of its members) are very selective regarding whether or not it is okay to talk about this. I'm not buying that the members of a religion based on the supposed visitation of God the Father and Jesus Christ and an angel named Moroni to Joseph Smith really have a problem with discussing angelic visitations. Again, the OP is simply being intentionally avoided.

 

[Jane_Doe]

Christ is above everything, so this is not so much obvious as it is irrelevant and unenlightening.

It's revenant because it's the point I was making earlier and you specifically asked about.

And anyway, this still doesn't make sense as a response, because all the OP asks is if this handshake test is used, and if you could provide some examples of it being used. There's no request that anyone share their personal stories, so if it is used you could conceivably come up with an example to show it without involving yourself personally.

If an angel appeared to someone, then it’s their *personal* story. And no, it’s not remotely casually shared. The OP’s request here is completely unreasonable.

It seems like Mormons on this board (but not elsewhere, as I've already linked to a Mormon messageboard where there is a discussion on angelic visitation prompted by the supposed vision of one of its members) are very selective regarding whether or not it is okay to talk about this.

You’ve been told this fact repeatedly. Something as sacred as an personal angelic visit is NOT remotely casually talked about. Such is incredibly disrespectful.

I'm not buying that the members of a religion based on the supposed visitation of God the Father and Jesus Christ and an angel named Moroni to Joseph Smith really have a problem with discussing angelic visitations.

Apples and oranges. Those visits are for the world, not personal for individuals.

 

[drstevej]

There are stories off seeing different members of families who have past on and needing temple work done. There is the story of bombing up in Wyoming where children saw their grandmothers protecting them. In that case it wasn't just Mormons. I have a friend whose husband was in a bad farm accident who will not talk about it except to family, I know he saw something he's a changed man. I have another friend who was in a bad accident hanging upside down in a ravine with her little boy for hours. She'll tell you she was not alone but nothing more. Yes Mormons see spirits/angels.

How do they know what they are seeing without the handshake test?

 

[fatboys]

How do they know what they are seeing without the handshake test?

I as going to respond but

 

[Ironhold]

So you consider Christians to be dogs and swine and therefore unworthy for you to share your "pearls" with?

Do you not understand the metaphor behind the verse?

 

[dzheremi]

It's revenant because it's the point I was making earlier and you specifically asked about.

It does explain why you'd rather talk about Christ, yes. It does not explain why saying that is an appropriate response to questions about something else. Pointing out that Christ is more important than what you are actually being asked about just makes it seem like you're using a fact that nobody will disagree with as an excuse to dodge perfectly reasonable questions that you don't want to answer.

If an angel appeared to someone, then it’s their *personal* story.

You say later on in this same post that the visions of Joseph Smith are a different matter because they're meant for the whole world. How do you know when a vision is a "personal story" and when it's meant for the whole world?

Because the scriptures and the fathers are full of stories of angels interacting with humanity which can be said to be personal, yet are also shared with the whole world. First and foremost to Christians would be an example such as the annunciation, which for sure was personal to the Theotokos St. Mary (the angel announced the good news to her in particular, not to everybody), but was also meant for the entire world to know, as is evidenced by its inclusion in the scriptures themselves.

Ditto the message of the angel to Mary Magdalene at the tomb. The angel spoke it her, and she told the others what it had said. Should she have kept it to herself, because it was personally given to her and not to others?

The OP’s request here is completely unreasonable.

Hardly. All you've done is appeal to some sense of offendedness at something that is not only not offensive, but is actually shown in the Bible several times to be positive (see above).

You’ve been told this fact repeatedly. Something as sacred as an personal angelic visit is NOT remotely casually talked about. Such is incredibly disrespectful.

I'm not going to sit here and argue that you cannot feel this way, but I would stil go back to the examples in the Bible of angelic visitations that were obviously openly talked about and not done disrespectively. Those, and all the same in the fathers, show that regardless of Mormonism's sudden discomfort with the topic, it shouldn't be a foregone conclusion that any such talk would be disrespectful, or taken up in a casual manner.

Apples and oranges. Those visits are for the world, not personal for individuals.

Again, how can you tell one type from another, then? I believe that the story of Abu Seifein is meant for all the world, and the fact that the saint is venerated in all major communions outside of perhaps the Anglican communion would seem to bear this out. The same would go for any of the (never trivially) repeated stories of saints who have been visited by angels.

On the other hand, if you're going to have the mindset that these things are 'too sacred' to be discussed, then what's the point of having this handshake test in the first place? So that you can verify something you're not even supposed to talk about? What's the point, then?

 

[Rescued One]

You haven't seen one?

Questions seldom provide answers to questions.

 

[Jane_Doe]

It does explain why you'd rather talk about Christ, yes. It does not explain why saying that is an appropriate response to questions about something else.

I was just asking Steve a question. Not sure why this is such a huge deal.

an excuse to dodge perfectly reasonable questions that you don't want to answer.

The OP was addressed repeatedly.

You say later on in this same post that the visions of Joseph Smith are a different matter because they're meant for the whole world. How do you know when a vision is a "personal story" and when it's meant for the whole world?

By listening to God.

 

[dzheremi]

By listening to God.

Okay. Why is this question being treated as if it is categorically off limits, then? What if God wants you to testify to this and you are not doing so out of a misguided attempt to preserve the sacredness of the visitations of His angels? Do you know that this is not the case, such that answers focusing on how this is 'incredibly disrespectful' aren't perhaps making too broad a statement?

I could understand the Mormon replies here a bit better if people were saying "I don't personally feel comfortable talking about this stuff, but here's a resource you can read where other people do talk about it" (since that would satisfy the OP without exposing anyone's personal stories that they didn't already put out there), but the way that the OP is being non-answered makes it seem like it's an offense to even ask. That's what's so weird to me.

I would welcome people showing interest in my faith, and if it is done by talking about miracles, then so what? It gets them talking and thinking about it. After all, isn't that why miracles happen in the first place -- to confirm the presence of God among His people so that they may believe and bear witness to Him? A miracle (be it a visitation, healing, or whatever) that cannot be talked about because it's too sacred to be discussed by mere people is kind of a lousy miracle.

In traditional churches, the Eucharist is the zenith of the liturgy, during which time is manifested among us the true Christ Whose body and blood we consume in the Eucharistic sacrifice, for the salvation of our souls. Being that this is what is taking place, we literally prostrate ourselves before the Holy blood and body during the section of the liturgy when they are presented and respond to the priest's proclamations by saying "We worship Your holy body, and Your precious blood".

There literally cannot be anything more sacred than direct communion with our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ. And because it is so sacred, we talk about it! We want people to understand what is going on and why and what it all means.

Why is the Mormon reaction so different than this? Even those Christians who do not believe in the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist and instead regard it as a memorial still talk about it openly with those who want to learn whatever it is their particular church teaches about it. I grew up in the Presbyterian Church, which at least in our church favored grape juice and crackers (Lord have mercy!), and yet I can remember our pastor still talking about the last supper, and treating it with all the gravitas he could muster in the context of that church's theology.

The point is that it is still talked about. I have not seen anyone retreat into this 'too sacred to discuss' idea in any Christian church I've been in, whether Protestant, Catholic, or now Orthodox. The closest thing I've ever heard is that some things are too sacred, too far above our ability to comprehend them to be encapsulated in language, but that's a different stance than saying 'talking about them is inherently offensive', which is how some of these replies are coming off.

I mean, Christianity itself maintains as a matter of basic doctrine and faith that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, who came down from heaven to save and redeem mankind and the entire creation. So we have a religion which says "God literally came here and walked, talked, healed, preached, died, and resurrected among us." What could be more sacred than being in the literal presence of God? And yet that's what we say happened, and still happens! And we're so committed to it that we wrote a whole book about it (the New Testament), and many, many, many other things (all the writings of the fathers, the canons and creeds of the councils, the hymns, the martyrologies, etc.), all to communicate it to people.

And it's the most sacred thing that has ever happened.

I am filled with praise beyond all words for our masters and fathers the apostles and their disciples, because they did not think this a thing to be held onto among themselves so that the likes of us wouldn't ruin it somehow, but instead brought it to us so that we may be transformed by it as they themselves were!

 

[fatboys]

Okay. Why is this question being treated as if it is categorically off limits, then? What if God wants you to testify to this and you are not doing so out of a misguided attempt to preserve the sacredness of the visitations of His angels? Do you know that this is not the case, such that answers focusing on how this is 'incredibly disrespectful' aren't perhaps making too broad a statement?

I could understand the Mormon replies here a bit better if people were saying "I don't personally feel comfortable talking about this stuff, but here's a resource you can read where other people do talk about it" (since that would satisfy the OP without exposing anyone's personal stories that they didn't already put out there), but the way that the OP is being non-answered makes it seem like it's an offense to even ask. That's what's so weird to me.

I would welcome people showing interest in my faith, and if it is done by talking about miracles, then so what? It gets them talking and thinking about it. After all, isn't that why miracles happen in the first place -- to confirm the presence of God among His people so that they may believe and bear witness to Him? A miracle (be it a visitation, healing, or whatever) that cannot be talked about because it's too sacred to be discussed by mere people is kind of a lousy miracle.

In traditional churches, the Eucharist is the zenith of the liturgy, during which time is manifested among us the true Christ Whose body and blood we consume in the Eucharistic sacrifice, for the salvation of our souls. Being that this is what is taking place, we literally prostrate ourselves before the Holy blood and body during the section of the liturgy when they are presented and respond to the priest's proclamations by saying "We worship Your holy body, and Your precious blood".

There literally cannot be anything more sacred than direct communion with our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ. And because it is so sacred, we talk about it! We want people to understand what is going on and why and what it all means.

Why is the Mormon reaction so different than this? Even those Christians who do not believe in the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist and instead regard it as a memorial still talk about it openly with those who want to learn whatever it is their particular church teaches about it. I grew up in the Presbyterian Church, which at least in our church favored grape juice and crackers (Lord have mercy!), and yet I can remember our pastor still talking about the last supper, and treating it with all the gravitas he could muster in the context of that church's theology.

The point is that it is still talked about. I have not seen anyone retreat into this 'too sacred to discuss' idea in any Christian church I've been in, whether Protestant, Catholic, or now Orthodox. The closest thing I've ever heard is that some things are too sacred, too far above our ability to comprehend them to be encapsulated in language, but that's a different stance than saying 'talking about them is inherently offensive', which is how some of these replies are coming off.

I mean, Christianity itself maintains as a matter of basic doctrine and faith that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, who came down from heaven to save and redeem mankind and the entire creation. So we have a religion which says "God literally came here and walked, talked, healed, preached, died, and resurrected among us." What could be more sacred than being in the literal presence of God? And yet that's what we say happened, and still happens! And we're so committed to it that we wrote a whole book about it (the New Testament), and many, many, many other things (all the writings of the fathers, the canons and creeds of the councils, the hymns, the martyrologies, etc.), all to communicate it to people.

And it's the most sacred thing that has ever happened.

I am filled with praise beyond all words for our masters and fathers the apostles and their disciples, because they did not think this a thing to be held onto among themselves so that the likes of us wouldn't ruin it somehow, but instead brought it to us so that we may be transformed by it as they themselves were!

Joseph Smith was not a perfect man. After his first vision he was told not to tell any one but being so young he eventually did. And from that time on he was persecuted mocked tarred and feathered beaten and threatened his life. People who are normally good because evil and trampled on this wonderful sacred event. Why did God tell Joseph to say nothing about for a time? Because he knows the hearts of men. If I had a spiritual experience such as a visit from an angel and I tested this angel just as we are told why would I want this experience to be mocked and trampled on? The OP is not sincere in wanting an answer except to mock and say these experiences are from the devil because Mormons don't believe in the right Christ. Therefore any thing spiritual that confirms their belief must be from the devil. Why would I want expose something that would be sacred to those who would trample it in the dirt and filth of the world like pigs do?

 

[Jane_Doe]

Okay. Why is this question being treated as if it is categorically off limits, then? What if God wants you to testify to this and you are not doing so out of a misguided attempt to preserve the sacredness of the visitations of His angels? Do you know that this is not the case, such that answers focusing on how this is 'incredibly disrespectful' aren't perhaps making too broad a statement?

Dude: the number of people who have experiences to be recorded in scripture or otherwise for the world are VERY few. And this world is an extremely dirty place where things of God are continually mocked.

I could understand the Mormon replies here a bit better if people were saying "I don't personally feel comfortable talking about this stuff, but here's a resource you can read where other people do talk about it" (since that would satisfy the OP without exposing anyone's personal stories that they didn't already put out there), but the way that the OP is being non-answered makes it seem like it's an offense to even ask. That's what's so weird to me.

If Steve wants to read a scriptural account, he knows where to find them. If you have a genuine interest and don't know where to find things, I can point you in the right direction.

 

[dzheremi]

Dude: the number of people who have experiences to be recorded in scripture or otherwise for the world are VERY few.

I'm not sure how you reach that conclusion.

And this world is an extremely dirty place where things of God are continually mocked.

This is something that I have noticed as an undercurrent in a lot of replies from Mormons: people ruin things; the world is terrible; etc. I just can't agree. "For God so loved the world..." is how the Bible puts it. We are to love what God loves. The mockery of fools can't somehow ontologically change the things that God has made. Though, to be fair to Mormons/Mormonism, this seems to be a much more pronounced difference between Eastern and Western Christianity in general rather than something specific to Mormonism (compare, e.g., a Western/Latin hymn like Stabat Mater, which calls upon the believer to identify with the suffering of St. Mary upon seeing her Son's crucifixion, the Coptic fraction for the Son, which emphasizes that God went through death for us of His own will because of His love for us; both of these are a part of all Christian traditions, but it is a matter of a different emphasis, with the West tending to have a more negative view of the world and humanity, in some respects).

If you have a genuine interest and don't know where to find things, I can point you in the right direction.

Well, I only have an interest in Mormonism from a comparative perspective, and of course because I have personally known Mormons. There isn't really anything to compare here (we don't have handshake tests or anything like that), but thank you for the offer. My point was more to say that there are other ways to answer this question that would be more informative for all involved (not just the OP, but all the non-Mormons here), so it surprises me that Mormons would not take that route, but instead say that it is offensive to ask about certain things.